Photo by Doug Mills (Associated Press, 1996)
By Mirel Ketchiff
According to the firstamendmentcenter.org, on Wednesday U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that publicly funded election candidates in Arizona can receive supplemental money if privately funded opponents outspend them, or if independent groups target them during their campaign. Judge Silver said that she would explain her reasoning by Oct. 17.
Candidates begin with base funding allotments for their campaigns if they participate in the Clean Elections campaign-funding system. These candidates then can receive matching funds depending on either opponents’ spending in primary elections or their fundraising in the general election. Matching funds can also be triggered by independent expenditures.
In late August Silver ruled that matching funds were a First Amendment violation but didn’t issue an injunction at the time, saying the case was brought to her too near the Sept. 2 primary election. Those against supplemental funds (including the Institute for Justice) believe they violate free speech rights since supporters of a candidate would be reluctant raise funds privately, fearing they would trigger matching funds for an opponent. Supporters, however, say that matching funds reduces the ability of private contributions to corrupt a candidate. They also believe that a change in the candidate funding system this close to Nov. 4, the general election, would be unfair.
Attorney Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute, who is representing some groups and candidates opposed to supplemental funding, said his clients would decide whether to appeal after Silver explained her ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment